July 6 letters to the editor

In 2008, I joined millions of other Californians and voted in the state election, which included Proposition 8.

At the time, my belief was that in a democratic election the candidate or proposition that received a majority of the votes is declared the winner and the result would peacefully be respected by all parties, including citizens and government officials.

However, I soon learned that in California the reality is that if you lose an election you can arrange for one judge to trump the votes of millions of citizens. Then, you can persuade state officials to refuse to defend the vote of the people in higher courts.

To those who celebrate the demise of Proposition 8 by these means, I say to you that here is the cost: The belief that California elections are fair and honest is dead.

Richard Ludt

Pleasanton

Support constitutional right to get married

I am a married straight person. I also know several openly gay people.

My experience with gays has been, not surprisingly, the same as it has been with straight people -- pretty normal. With this in mind, believing as I do that the majority of LGBT people are indistinguishable from straight people other than their sexual orientation, I also support their constitutional right to marry and receive the same consideration related to taxes, survivor benefits, etc., as I have.

Advertisement

Giving them the same rights as I have does not seem to me to cause any harm.

To those who supported Proposition 8 and are troubled by the recent Supreme Court decision, I say take a deep breath. The 21st century is upon us. In time you will see many more changes as our society evolves in ways nobody could have foreseen at this moment in time.

Fredrick R. Ford

Walnut Creek

Gay marriage opens door for corruption

The Supreme Court decision regarding same-sex marriage, while great for homosexuals wishing to get married, is an asexual decision. Any couple of the same sex who wish to enjoy the tax or other benefits afforded to legally married couples may now do so.

The gay community claims the decision as their victory, when it is, in fact, an equal victory for single heterosexuals who would like their fair share of marriage benefits.

The decision leaves the door open for corruption. Who better to trust with one's estate/life travails than a lifelong friend of the same sex? Throw in a prenuptial, girlfriend/boyfriend, and it's a cake all can have and eat for as long as it is beneficial to do so. Homeless, elderly, disabled of all stripes can now increase their benefits via a same-sex marriage. Congratulations to them all!

The "evolution" of marriage is a definite victory for lawyers. It is the barristers who should be having a celebratory parade.

Michael Bassett

Pleasant Hill

Rights of state voters annihilated by courts

The people of the state of California passed two propositions defining the word "marriage" as the legal union of a male and female.

Proposition 22, the first one, was struck down, against the will of the people, by two judges claiming it needed to be a California constitutional amendment.

Proposition 8 was the California constitutional amendment defining marriage as the legal union between a male and female. This time, one judge struck it down against the will of the people.

We used to be a country "of the people, by the people and for the people." We are now controlled by activists and special interest groups. President Barack Obama says we need to "evolve." I ask you, into what?

Heterosexuals no longer have a word to describe their union. No one's right to love whom they choose was taken away by the definition of the word "marriage." The rights of the majority of the voters of California were annihilated by courts who claim "justice for all."

Denise Bellante

Antioch

Arguments against gay marriage ludicrous

I am very pleased my gay friends are finally free to fully enjoy the honorable right to marry whomever they choose, just as we straight folk have.

What I find truly peculiar is this ludicrous notion -- propounded by nitwits like Rand Paul -- that the Supreme Court's striking down of the Defense of Marriage Act will lead to man-and-dog weddings.

Apparently Paul fails to comprehend that, while it is true some humans are barely able to sign their own names on their marriage licenses, not one beast can -- making any such "marriage" uncompleted, null and void.

Ed Chainey

Richmond

Bible, biology don't jibe with same-sex marriage

I support God-designed marriage between a man and a woman (Matthew 19:4-6). God doesn't recognize same-sex "marriage" because it's not his design for marriage.

I don't hate anyone, I simply believe the Bible is God's word. Also, just from a biological view, it's obvious that homosexual relationships are not how it's supposed to be.

Some people struggle with same-sex attraction, but they can choose not to engage in homosexual relationships with God's help.

James Kral

Concord

Fundamental truth about marriage missed

Advocates and proponents of Proposition 8 all seem to miss the fundamental truth about marriage.

Marriage is a religious institution and belief. As such, it has no place in our system of laws. All references to marriage in our legal system need to be removed and replaced with domestic partner.

All contract references to marriage as a way to determine benefits and eligibility should be ruled illegal, as discrimination against others based on their religious beliefs is already unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, both sides seem to believe they have the legal right to demand that others believe in their God, as they do. Yes, in many religions, marriage is between a man and a woman, but not in all.

If your religious group does not believe in gay marriage, maybe it is time to establish a new one. At this time, if the anti-gay marriage proponents do not stop the rampant discrimination against gays, solely based on religious beliefs, then the court should rule that anyone can be married under the law.

James MacDonald

Pittsburg

Not in agreement with court's decision

I do not agree with the Supreme Court's decision, which is causing marriage to be redefined.

The Supreme Court took the easy way out by really only saying that the lawyers who were defending Proposition 8 could not do so. Thus, what I am more disappointed in is that our state leadership -- namely the governor and attorney general, abandoned their sworn duties by refusing to defend the will of the people when Proposition 8 passed. Not only do I consider their actions illegal, but also quite immoral.

To me, there is now marriage and same-sex marriage. I will never consider them the same.

I understand that I live in an extremely liberal area and I do so strictly for the weather. To remain here, I imagine I will now be forced to "go into the closet."

As the homosexual lobby has also redefined "phobia" to mean "hate" rather than "fear," at least when related to homosexuality, I will not be surprised if my vocal dissent soon becomes a criminal offense.

David E. Smith

San Ramon

Concerns about voters' rights

While I really couldn't care less who marries whom, to simply throw out Prop. 8, which went through the legal initiative process, is troubling.

Another matter of great concern is that our elected officials (governor, attorney general, etc.) showed great disdain for the voters over that proposition. When the majority votes for something, that should be taken very seriously. Throwing out DOMA is another concern.

It is not the job of the U.S. Supreme Court to make or discard laws. Their job is to interpret existing laws.

Dawn Magnussen

Brentwood

Jesus defined marriage

In the case of Prop. 8, the justices decided that Gov. Jerry Brown's opinion matters more than 7 million voters. And in the DOMA case, we have five justices who thought their own personal opinions were more enlightened than millions of Americans who think otherwise.

However, rather than leave the last word to those who want to play the part of God, I think it's worth hearing from Jesus himself. In Matthew 19, when asked if divorce is permissible, Jesus answers: "Haven't you read that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh ... therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate."

I used to think it odd that Jesus answers by first commenting that people were created male and female, since it seems an obvious point. Now, however, I sense that he was not just speaking to them, but to us. Is anybody listening?

Al Anderson

Concord

Damage to the initiative process

Regardless of one's political leanings, the manner of resolution of Prop. 8 has seriously undermined the rule of law and our rights through the initiative process in California.

Our governor and attorney general take an oath of office. It includes: "I ... do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter"

It does not include the caveat of supporting only the parts of the Constitution one likes, or confers constitutionality determining powers. That is for the courts.

Our elected officials abdicated their responsibility, and did so in a manner that seriously undermined the position the people have in the initiative process in California.